1. CHAPTER 4 PROSTITUTION

2. POINTS OF CONTENTION None of the ideological groups support sex trafficking, but they disagree on the policy best designed to eradicate it, as well as the best policy to support the safety of those more broadly involved in commercial sex

3. LIBERAL FEMINISTS (REVIEW) Agency in making choice to sell sex Victimization may still occur, and victimization results from illegality Sex Work Patriarchy as State control of women’s bodies Option or survival strategy for poor women Sexual agency, desire

4. RADICAL FEMINISTS– (REVIEW) Victimization is inherent to prostitution, all prostitution is exploitive and harmful Reject the idea that prostitution can be voluntary/ expression of agency; prostitution violates human rights Legalization/Decriminalization denies agency of women in broader society, equates state sanctioning of mass denial of agency by legitimizing women’s bodies as commodities or sexual objects Patriarchy as sexual objectification of women Prostitution reflects and reproduces Patriarchy “Greater Good” for all women supersedes individual choices of some women

5. INTERSECTIONAL FEMINISTS (REVIEW) Poverty, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, global power relations all impact prostitution Include men, boys, LGBTQ* people in their discussion, reject essentialism Complex- Viable work option for those in poor nations, use of body to make money is economically empowering; simultaneously, structural inequalities lead to exploitation based upon intersecting identities

6. MODELS OF PROSTITUTION POLICY Deterrence/Prohibitionist/Criminalization Model Legalization Model Decriminalization Model Abolitionist Model/Swedish Model

7. DETERRENCE MODEL (PROHIBITIONIST/ CRIMINALIZATION) Prostitution criminalized Crime for those who sell sex, buy sex, and any 3 rd parties such as “managers” “pimps” “madams” and “traffickers.” Those who sell sex are seen as having agency – made the choice to commit crime, with exception of trafficked people who are seen as victims. Result: Arrest, fines, jail time U.S.*, China, Cambodia, Jamaica, Malta, Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam and others.

8. PROBLEMS WITH DETERRENCE MODEL (U.S.) Disproportionate arrest/charge rates Misidentification of trafficked people as criminals Criminalization of sex workers Builds distrust of law enforcement/ reduces help-seeking Revolving door back into the commercial sex industry/re-trafficking Violence against commercial-sex involved people by police, clients, 3 rd parties, and community members No legal apparatus to defend themselves Harm reduction is limited to large cities Deterrence is ineffective at reducing both trafficking/prostitution Just because something is illegal, it doesn’t mean it goes away Widely recognized as the worst system for trafficked and exploited people, as well as sex workers

9. DECRIMINALIZATION MODEL Decriminalizes prostitution, for both buyers and sellers of sex Traffickers are criminalized Criminalizes exploitation and coercion, not the sex work Those who sell sex are seen as having agency, those who are trafficked are viewed as victims Provides those in the sex industry with recourse for their victimization Research indicates lowest levels of victimization to sex workers in these regions Also low levels of sex trafficking New Zealand, New South Wales, Australia (even these have some rules, such as brother licensing or banned street population) are the only sites recognized as truly decriminalization models.

10. PROBLEMS WITH DECRIMINALIZATION MODEL Difficult to do comparative research because of small sample sizes Can’t rule our regional contextual factors when analyzing results

11. LEGALIZATION MODEL Decriminalizes prostitution, but also regulates it; there are “rules” Criminalizes exploitation and coercion, not the sex work Traffickers are criminalized, buyers and sellers are not Those who sell sex are seen as having agency, trafficked people are seen as victims Legitimate occupation bound by the same rules– taxes, licensing, registration Have recourse for their victimization Healthcare, taxes, legal zones, expanded harm reduction The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Denmark, Greece, Turkey, Senegal, and Victoria, Queensland, and the Northern Territory in Australia, 10 counties in Nevada U.S., etc

12. PROBLEMS WITH LEGALIZATION MODEL Sellers of sex get health screenings, buyers do not (usually) Continue to disproportionately be victims of crime Have not yet attained the status of respected service provider Police harassment continues Taxes/, licensing fees, health screening requirements not popular among sex workers Two tier legal-illegal system Increased sex trafficking in some locations in Western Europe, but not in others, such as in Australia

13. INCREASED SEX TRAFFICKING IN LEGALIZATION MODELS? DEPENDS ON LOCATION. Scale effect Substitution effect Scale effect has more of an impact, with the exception of Australia and New Zealand where it is reduced; so is victimization Regional contextual factors likely impact whether legalization/decriminalization increases or reduces sex trafficking (regional location, ease of travel, immigration)

14. ABOLITIONIST MODEL: Illegal for everyone but the person selling sex. Buyers, 3 rd parties criminalized “Swedish Model” All commercial sex involved people are seen as victims Includes social-welfare services that assist people in exiting and avoiding prostitution Public education campaigns to raise awareness of the harms experienced by prostituted people Works to change social norms that support sex trafficking and prostitution Shows decline in sex trafficking Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and recently France *recent changes in the U.K., and some states in the US suggest movement in this direction.

15. PROBLEMS WITH ABOLITIONIST MODEL Shows reduction in trafficking, but the research is methodologically challenging Prostitution and trafficking are defined as the same thing Unclear if it reduces it or moves it Criminal Displacement/ Underground Harm reduction benefits conditional Takes away agency of those who wish to sell sex Lack of harm reduction Forces quicker and riskier decision making re: clients Difficult to do comparative research because of small sample sizes Can’t rule our regional contextual factors when analyzing results

16. INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ARENA The International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons 1949 was both anti-trafficking as well as anti-prostitution, and the first abolitionist attempt. Many states did not ratify it because it conflated trafficking and prostitution. UN Vienna Declaration (1993) marked clear distinction between trafficking and prostitution Palermo Protocol (2000)included wording “abuse of a position of vulnerability”

17. INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ARENA In part due to heated debates, the U.N. moved away from abolitionism Many European nations adopted legalization policy Changing more recently in some countries This is in part due to influx of migrants seeking work, xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiments, in part due to increased sex trafficking/ awareness of exploitation Amnesty International supports decriminalization

18. LIBERAL /INTERSECTIONAL FEMINISM IN THE INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ARENA GAATW ( G lobal A lliance A gainst T raffic in W omen), draws a line between sex work and trafficking, trafficking is forced, sex work is voluntary. Abolish trafficking but not sex work. Based in Thailand. http://www.gaatw.org/about-us/history ICPR ( I nternational C ommittee for P rostitutes’ R ights)- Legalize prostitution for the benefit of sex workers. Eradicate trafficking while working to support sex workers’ rights simultaneously.

19. RADICAL FEMINISM IN THE INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ARENA CATW ( C oalition A gainst T rafficking in W omen)- abolitionist, wish to abolish both trafficking and prostitution as they believe they are inherently intertwined. International Organization based in the US. http://www.catwinternational.org/

20. HOW DO THESE DEBATES RELATE TO SEX TRAFFICKING? Liberal Feminists, Neoliberals typically support legalization or decriminalization models Abolitionists, Radical Feminists usually support abolitionist “Swedish” model The deterrence model (U.S. model) is widely recognized as harmful to sex trafficked and commercially sexually exploited people, and sex workers alike. Debates have international and national political presence Academic debates

21. OUTCOMES- U.S. Debates between radical feminists/ abolitionists and liberal feminists/neoliberals remain. Legally, we maintain distinction between pornography, prostitution, and trafficking Pornography will not change. Supreme Court makes it clear that it is a protected form of free speech. Exception= minors, subjective calls on obscenity. U.S. Maintains deterrence model of prostitution– the worst in terms of outcomes. Trafficking legislation focuses on decriminalization of minors selling sex, channeling them into services instead of criminalizing them (implementation issues, Ch. 9). Adults remain largely criminalized, unless force fraud or coercion can be proven In some states, adults who can prove trafficking can expunge criminal records Increased efforts on “End Demand” approaches, targeting buyers (ch. 8).

22. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Describe the benefits and challenges of various models of prostitution policy. 2. If you were to design a model of prostitution policy, what would it look like, and why? 3. Why is harm reduction so important, regardless of the prostitution policy at hand?